Allowed

Saheem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024/891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a narcotics trial sought summons of CCTV footage, call records and mobile locations to show illegal custody and false recovery; his application was rejected as delaying tactic. The High Court found the rejection cursory, since he could not produce such evidence himself while in custody.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.12.2023 rejecting the summoning applications quashed; trial court directed to decide them afresh.

Saheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10350

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 891 of 2024 Applicant :- Saheem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob,Km. Pooja Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the order, learned A.G.A consented to final hearing of the applicant and he stated that he does not proposed to file a counter affidavit.

¶8

By means of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashing of an order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.10, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 1160 of 2023 (State Vs. Saheem), whereby various application filed by the applicant for summoning certain evidences, namely, the call details record of the applicant and some police persons, location of their mobile phones and CCTV footage of cameras installed on certain places was sought to be summoned on the ground that the police had illegally taken the applicant in custody from Malesemau, Lucknow while he was accompanied by his seven years' old son and they had illegally taken him in a private vehicle to Barabanki and thereafter falsely shown recovery of some narcotics from him.

¶9

The applicant has been repetitively filling applications to this effect since he was taken into custody but no orders were passed thereon and when the trial reached the stage of defence evidence, the application has been rejected after taking into

¶10

consideration the submission of the learned public prosecutor that the applications were filed with the objective of delaying the trial and the applicant could himself produce the evidences.

¶11

The evidences sought to be summoned namely the CCTV footage of cameras installed at public places from Lucknow to Barabanki, the mobile location and call detail records of the applicant and certain police persons can by no means be produced by the applicant, more particularly when the applicant is languishing in custody.

¶12

It appears that the application has been rejected in a cursory manner, without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.10, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 1160 of 2023 (State Vs. Saheem) is hereby quashed.

¶14

The trial court is directed to decide the aforesaid application filed by the applicant afresh keeping in view the observations made in this order.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 5.2.2024 Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saheem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Revisionist Is Minor a Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Charan Adhar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Sahanur and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Exyternal Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Pooja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Waseem vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another